Slam'n Systems
Veteran Techist Member
- Messages
- 828
- Location
- Albany, NY
I believe in God definitly! I am a so called "Religious Boy" ...I wont get into detail!
Every time I read this something sticks out... I just can't grab it yet...1. God exists in the mind but not in reality. (assumption for reductio)
2.) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the mind alone. (Premise)
3.) A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality can exist in the mind. (premise)
4.) A being having all of God's properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (From 1 and 2)
5.) A being greater than God can exist in the mind. (From 3 and 4)
6.) It is false that a being greater than God can exist in the mind. (From definition of God)
7.) Hence it is false that God exists in the mind but not in reality. (From 1, 5, and 6)
8.) God exists in the mind. (Premise to which even an atheist can agree)
9.) Hence God exists in reality. (From 7, 8)
There is still nothing that says if something greater than god exists in the mind, it must exist in reality.
Inaris said:This is all the proof I need...
"It is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mindbogglingly useful [as the babelfish] could evolve purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes somewhat like this:
'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith and without faith I'm nothing.'
'But,' said man, 'the babelfish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't, q.e.d.'
'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that.' And promptly vanishes in a puff of logic."
- The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Emily said:To KenMasters:
So... you're calling yourself a genius?
If by "for those of us who think outside the confines of normal methodology, we can not find logic in these statements" you mean that the argument doesn't make sense to you, read it again. Read it the way I re-worded it a few posts up. It makes sense if you think about it enough, and on the surface, it's logical. You're not the first person for centuries to come along who thinks "outside the confines of normal methodology", and no one was able to refute it for centuries.
I agree that existence in reality is not an easy concept to define, but the definition of reality doesn't have to be consistent from reader to reader, as long as each reader defines it consistently throughout their own interpretation of the proof. For example, if you said that being made out of chocolate is a positive quality and you defined existence in reality as made out of chocolate, the conclusion would be that God is made out of chocolate.